Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[Abaxvahl]

"True for you" is not exactly a universal.

I did not mean that in that sense, but as in "whether or not these rules apply to all just returns to whether or not Christianity is true." I added "for me" as in, that is the only way that discussion can go that I personally see. I did not mean that Christianity is true only for me, even one of the marks of the Church is just the word "Universal." I hold that it is a revelation from God binding on all, not just me.

 

[public hermit]

So... do Christians have any ethical or moral backstops?

Yes, I think so only if it's realized in what we do, or don't do. In other words, just like everybody else, we do what we want.

I think this question about backstops is misguided. The ten commandments have no power to stop someone from acting contrary to what they command. We do what we think is good to do, for any myriad of reasons, and no moral statute can prohibit that. No one, then, has a backstop if a backstop is something that cannot be transgressed.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, I think so only if it's realized in what we do, or don't do. In other words, just like everybody else, we do what we want.

I think this question about backstops is misguided. The ten commandments have no power to stop someone from acting contrary to what they command. We do what we think is good to do, for any myriad of reasons, and no moral statute can prohibit that. No one, then, has a backstop if a backstop is something that cannot be transgressed.

Plus there's whether they are absolutes and if not,
where the boundaries actually are

 

[public hermit]

Plus there's whether they are absolutes and if not,
where the boundaries actually are

As a Christian, I would say, for me, love is supposed to function as an absolute in the sense that it can override other commands but itself cannot be overridden. Love always seeks what is to the benefit of those involved. Sometimes lying, for instance, can be overridden by love. If the Nazis knock looking for the Jews in my basement, I should lie according to the law of love.

That's me, but I'm sure many Christians would disagree, lol, so it's not an obvious absolute if it is one, and it's not a backstop. I have done some things that are not very loving, to my shame. I wish it were a backstop or whatever.

 

[VirOptimus]

How is this the case?

Read history.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Read history.

Concerning God's religion I have, and I see no value change. What history do you suggest I read? It doesn't all say the same thing and often data is a Rorschach test. Some book or record must have convinced you this was the case, what would that be?

 

[Astrid]

As a Christian, I would say, for me, love is supposed to function as an absolute in the sense that it can override other commands but itself cannot be overridden. Love always seeks what is to the benefit of those involved. Sometimes lying, for instance, can be overridden by love. If the Nazis knock looking for the Jews in my basement, I should lie according to the law of love.

That's me, but I'm sure many Christians would disagree, lol, so it's not an obvious absolute if it is one, and it's not a backstop. I have done some things that are not very loving, to my shame. I wish it were a backstop or whatever.

I like that.
How might you say it in one sentence?

 

[Astrid]

Concerning God's religion I have, and I see no value change. What history do you suggest I read? It doesn't all say the same thing and often data is a Rorschach test. Some book or record must have convinced you this was the case, what would that be?

I don't know what would change either.

The core values, things like courage, generosity, love, service, compassion etc
etc are matters or character, respect worldwide and in no way unique to
Christianity.

As moral facts virtues for a successful society we'd expect every
society to honour those.

 

[public hermit]

I like that.
How might you say it in one sentence?

There are no obvious absolutes that compel obedience.
ETA: moral absolutes

 

[Astrid]

There are no obvious absolutes that compel obedience.

How about the part that puts love / compassion at the top,
overriding all other moral concerns

 

[public hermit]

How about the part that puts love / compassion at the top,
overriding all other moral concerns

Yes, that's the one I try to hold to but I don't know how obvious it is. think it's pretty obvious, but I'm biased. Certainly, as I know from experience, love does not always compel obedience, at least not as an moral absolute.

Then again, we do find some form of the golden rule throughout religions and philosophies. It's almost ubiquitous. So, perhaps love (treating self and others in ways that benefit and not harm) is more readily obvious than I'm allowing for. I don't know.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

 

[Ken-1122]

Maybe we just see his poorly expressed post differently.

Moral facts are of course about how morality relates to reality.
Thinking is required in making moral decisions...

Yeah; but not all thinking is about moral decisions.

One thing you for sure got wrong, I'm nobody's "bro".

Yeah; I see you are not from the USA. In the US "bro" is just another term for friend.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yeah; but not all thinking is about moral decisions.

Yeah; I see you are not from the USA. In the US "bro" is just another term for friend.

Unless used ironically as in, "Cool story, bro".

 

[stevil]

Please note, I'm not asking whether Atheists possess moral and ethical values. I'm asking whether there are any backstops that prevent atheists from deciding that behaviours that are currently considered immoral and unethical, are now morally and ethically acceptable.

I'm an atheist and a moral nihilist, so I'm not going to answer this question exactly as it is written.
I don't frame things as whether they are moral or immoral. I'm not concerned about labelling things this way and I am not so grandiose as to suggest my beliefs on right and wrong should apply to others.

I personally behave in such a way as benefits me. I'm not invincible, am not overly powerful, i'm not above the law.
I value my freedom and my ability to travel overseas so I avoid getting a criminal record.
I value my life so I generally avoid conflict (a.k.a I avoid trying to assault or murder or steal from others)
I value my reputation and how others use this to trust me and give me opportunities.
I regognise my need to exist in a society, and my need for that society to be safe, stable and thriving, so I support laws against murder, assault, theft etc.
I do not care about morality, so I do not support laws against things that are immoral, just for the sake of morality.

 

[Astrid]

Yeah; but not all thinking is about moral decisions.

That's not worth saying.

 

[Astrid]

Unless used ironically as in, "Cool story, bro".

So a bro is like a woke redneck.

 

[VirOptimus]

Concerning God's religion I have, and I see no value change. What history do you suggest I read? It doesn't all say the same thing and often data is a Rorschach test. Some book or record must have convinced you this was the case, what would that be?

Regarding christianity, slavery f.ex.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Regarding christianity, slavery f.ex.

Cool, something I've read about before. What history books, what records, what texts are you referring to on the issue of slavery for example? What in all of that made you think there was a value change?

 

[VirOptimus]

Cool, something I've read about before. What history books, what records, what texts are you referring to on the issue of slavery for example? What in all of that made you think there was a value change?

The bible is not against slavery, modern christians mostly are.

 

[Abaxvahl]

The bible is not against slavery, modern christians mostly are.

Unfortunate for them, doesn't apply to me though, I agree with all of God's Law. So I see that by value change you were not saying all Christians but only some, which is fair. I agree that many have changed values. Unless you meant something else not made clear here.